10th century Mass: Priest celebrates private Mass

[fish90]

Hello,

I was reading some information from a display about the Roman Missal and learned that the 10th century was the first time in the history of the Church that priests were the only individuals that had a “role (sorry lack of a better word).” By “role,” I mean the priest was the individual that followed a strict missal and performed all the “roles” (saying the readings, etc.).

Could anyone comment on this? Furthermore, did the bishops and liturgists want the people to have a “role” like it was before the 10th century in the Ordinary Form of the Mass?

Best,
fish90

 

[puzzleannie]

do you have some source for this?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Hello,

I was reading some information from a display about the Roman Missal and learned that the 10th century was the first time in the history of the Church that priests were the only individuals that had a “role (sorry lack of a better word).” By “role,” I mean the priest was the individual that followed a strict missal and performed all the “roles” (saying the readings, etc.).

Could anyone comment on this? Furthermore, did the bishops and liturgists want the people to have a “role” like it was before the 10th century in the Ordinary Form of the Mass?

Best,
fish90

If you compare with the Eastern Rites where the participation of the congregation is always a must. That points that early on in the Church, that is always how it was.

 

[fish90]

do you have some source for this?

No, it was a display at a library.

 

[Dirt]

I cannot speak to the question, but I have read in many articles/books on the subject of the decisions on the changes on the Mass from Vatican Council II that some of the reasoning behind those who were suggesting changes was to role back the Mass to the first millenium. There seems to be a group/school of thought that the Mass as it was codified in the second millenium was to structured and stiff, due in part to the reaction of the Church to the protestant reformation. I do not subscribe to this belief, but when studying the changes, in light of several documents from those at V-II, and the writtings of those most responsible for the final Form of the Novus Ordo, I can see this ideology.
Oddly enough this sort of antiquarian theology of returning to the first centuries was denounced by several early Popes and Councils, as well i believe by Trent. Seems we find ourselves in similar, but reversed situations today. History repeats.

Pax Christi

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Hello,

I was reading some information from a display about the Roman Missal and learned that the 10th century was the first time in the history of the Church that priests were the only individuals that had a “role (sorry lack of a better word).” By “role,” I mean the priest was the individual that followed a strict missal and performed all the “roles” (saying the readings, etc.).

Could anyone comment on this? Furthermore, did the bishops and liturgists want the people to have a “role” like it was before the 10th century in the Ordinary Form of the Mass?

Best,
fish90

I have no specific sources to cite. During the Middle Ages I believe the Church became very clericalised and in a sense the congregation became little more than an audience. This seems to be one of the reasons why Vatican II wanted to restore parts of the liturgy to the laity. For example, it is considered proper that the readings other than the gospel at Mass should be read by laypersons.